Introduction The UK Government has announced that it will be introducing legislation under which the UK tax authorities1 will move up the creditor hierarchy in English insolvency proceedings2 in respect of certain taxes paid by
Introduction
For more than a century, a creditor holding English law governed debt relied on the principle (known as the “rule in Gibbs ”) that a debt governed by English law cannot be discharged by a foreign insolvency proceeding, provided that the creditor does not submit to that proceeding.
When any industry faces challenging times, thoughts turn to what might happen to those companies which are unable to maintain their solvency and service their existing debt.
The Supreme Court (unanimously dismissing the appeal in Trustees of Olympic Airlines SA Pension &Life Assurance Scheme v Olympic Airlines SA) has held that “economic activity” is central to the definition of “establishment” in the Insolvency Regulation1.
Pension Protection Fund: valuation assumptions
The PPF has consulted on changing the assumptions used for section 143 valuations (used for schemes in assessment periods) and section 179 valuations (used when setting a scheme's risk-based levy). The PPF expects that the proposed changes would increase section 143 and section 179 liabilities by just under 4% and would potentially lead to a small increase in the number of schemes transferring to the PPF.
Pension Protection Fund: insolvency risk provider
HIGHLIGHTS
The credit crunch caused problems for businesses at the same time as the value of pension scheme assets plunged, adding ballooning defined benefit pension deficits to the woes of struggling companies.
Company insolvencies, and attempts at restructuring to avoid insolvencies, can have a significant impact on the pension schemes sponsored by those companies. The pensions issues can also act as a significant obstacle to restructuring.
The Court has heard another case dealing with a defective appointment of administrators under paragraph 22 of Schedule B1 Insolvency Act 1986 (“Schedule B1”)1. Following hot on the tail of a recent series of conflicting cases relating to defective appointments, the Court has held that:
In the much anticipated decision of Belmont Park Investments PTY Limited v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc [2011] UKSC 38 the Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal of Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc (“LBSF”) and in so doing provided clarification as to the scope and application of the anti-deprivation rule (the “Rule”).
Proposals issued October 2010
Confirmation given 31 January 2011
Policy statement issued May 2011
Draft guidance on the bespoke measurement of investment risk issued May 2011. Consultation ends on 24 June 2011
Consultation on the 2012/13 levy determination expected in autumn 2011
The PPF has confirmed its intention to implement a new levy framework from 2012/13. Key features of the framework confirmed in the policy statement include:
In a recent case1, the High Court concluded that it was right to sanction schemes of arrangement which formed part of a wider debt restructuring that excluded out-of-the-money junior creditors. In doing so, it valued the distressed companies on a going concern basis.
Background